First systematic analysis of its kind even proposes reasons for the negative correlation.

More than 400 years before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, Greek playwright Euripides wrote in his play Bellerophon, “Doth some one say that there be gods above? There are not; no, there are not. Let no fool, led by the old false fable, thus deceive you.”

Euripides was not an atheist and only used the word “fool” to provoke his audience. But, if you look at the studies conducted over the past century, you will find that those with religious beliefs will, on the whole, score lower on tests of intelligence. That is the conclusion of psychologists Miron Zuckerman and Jordan Silberman of the University of Rochester and Judith Hall of Northeastern University who have published a meta-analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Review.

This is the first systematic meta-analysis of 63 studies conducted between 1928 and 2012. In such an analysis, the authors look at each study’s sample size, quality of data collection, and analysis methods and then account for biases that may have inadvertently crept into the work. This data is next refracted through the prism of statistical theory to draw an overarching conclusion of what scholars in this field find. “Our conclusion,” as Zuckerman puts it, “is not new.”

“If you count the number of studies which find a positive correlation against those that find a negative correlation, you can draw the same conclusion because most studies find a negative correlation,” added Zuckerman. But that conclusion would be qualitative, because the studies’ methods vary. “What we have done is to draw that conclusion more accurately through statistical analysis.”

Setting the boundaries

Out of 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, while 10 showed a positive one. Significant negative correlations were seen in 35 studies, whereas only two studies showed significant positive correlations.

The three psychologists have defined intelligence as the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience.” In short this is analytic intelligence, not the newly identified forms of creative and emotional intelligence, which are still subjects of dispute. In the various studies being examined, analytic intelligence has been measured in many different ways, including GPA (grade point average), UEE (university entrance exams), Mensa membership, and Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests, among others.

Religiosity is defined as involvement in some (or all) facets of religion, which includes belief in the supernatural, offering gifts to this supernatural, and performing rituals affirming their beliefs. Other signs of religiosity were measured using surveys, church attendance, and membership in religious organizations.

Among the thousands of people involved in these studies, the authors found that gender or education made no difference to the correlation between religiosity and intelligence; however, age mattered. The negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence was found to be the weakest among the pre-college population. That may be because of the uniqueness of the college experience, where most teenagers leave home for the first time, get exposed to new ideas, and are given a higher degree of freedom to act on them. Instead, in pre-college years, religious beliefs may largely reflect those of the family.

The gifted, the atheists

Is there a chance that higher intelligence makes people less religious? Two sets of large-scale studies tried to answer this question.

The first are based on the Terman cohort of the gifted, started in 1921 by Lewis Terman, a psychologist at Stanford University. (The cohort is still being followed.) In the study, Terman recruited more than 1,500 children whose IQ exceeded 135 at the age of 10. Two studies used this data, one conducted by Robin Sears at Columbia University in 1995 and the other by Michael McCullough at the University of Miami in 2005, and they found that “Termites,” as the gifted are called, were less religious when compared to the general public.

What makes these results remarkable is not just that these gifted folks were less religious, something that is seen among elite scientists as well, but that 60 percent of the Termites reported receiving “very strict” or “considerable” religious training while 33 percent received little training. Thus, almost all of the gifted Termites grew up to be less religious.

The second set of studies is based on students of New York’s Hunter College Elementary School for the intellectually gifted. This school selects its students based on a test given at a young age. To study their religiosity, graduates of this school were queried when they were between the ages of 38 and 50. They all had IQs that exceeded 140, and the study found that only 16 percent of them derived personal satisfaction from religion (about the same number as the Termites).

So while the Hunter study did not control for factors such as socioeconomic status or occupation, it did find that high intelligence at a young age preceded lower belief in religion many years later.

Other studies on the topic have been ambiguous. A 2009 study, led by Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster, compared religious beliefs and average national IQs of 137 countries. In their sample, only 23 countries had more than 20 percent atheists, which constituted, according to Lynn, "virtually all higher IQ countries." The positive correlation between intelligence and atheism was a strong one, but the study came under criticism from Gordon Lynch of Birkbeck College, because it did not account for complex social, economical, and historical factors.

Enlarge/ The relationship between countries' belief in a god and national average IQ.

It’s the beliefs, stupid

Overall, Zuckerman, Silberman, and Hall conclude that, according to their meta-analysis, there is little doubt a significant negative correlation exists (i.e. people who are more religious score worse on varying measures of intelligence). The correlation is more negative when religiosity measures beliefs rather than behavior. That may be because religious behavior may be used to help someone appear to be part of a group even though they may not believe in the supernatural.

So why do more intelligent people appear to be less religious? There are three possible explanations. One possibility is that more intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. A 1992 meta-analysis of seven studies found that intelligent people may be more likely to become atheists when they live in religious societies, because intelligent people tend to be nonconformists.

The most common explanation is that intelligent people don’t like to accept any beliefs that are not subject to empirical tests or logical reasoning. Zuckerman writes in the review that intelligent people may think more analytically, which is “controlled, systematic, and slow”, as opposed to intuitively, which is “heuristic-based, mostly non-conscious, and fast." That analytical thinking leads to lower religiosity.

The final explanation is that intelligence provides whatever functions religion does for believers. There are four such functions as proposed by Zuckerman, Silberman, and Hall.

First, religion provides people a sense of control. This was demonstrated in a series of studies conducted between 2008 and 2010, which showed that threatening volunteers’ sense of personal control increased their belief in God. This may be because people believe that God makes the world more predictable and thus less threatening. Much like believing in God, higher intelligence has been shown to grant people more “self-efficacy,” which is the belief in one’s ability to achieve goals. So, if intelligent people have more control, then perhaps they don’t need religion in the same way that others do.

Second, religion provides self-regulation. In a 2009 study, it was shown that religion was associated with better well-being. This was interpreted as an indication that religious people were more disciplined in pursuing goals and deferring small rewards for large ones. Separately, a 2008 meta-analysis noted that intelligent people were less impulsive. Delayed gratification may require better working memory, which intelligent people have. So, just like before, intelligence is acting as a substitute for religion, helping people delay gratification without needing divine interventions.

Third, religion provides self-enhancement. A 1997 meta-analysis compared the intrinsically religious, who privately believe in the supernatural, to the extrinsically religious, where people are merely part of a religious group without believing in God. The intrinsically religious felt better about themselves than the general public. Similarly, intelligent people have been shown to have a sense of higher self-worth. Again, intelligence may be providing something that religion does.

Last, and possibly the most intriguing, is that religion provides attachment. Religious people often claim to have a personal relationship with God. They use God as an “anchor” when faced with the loss of a loved one or a broken relationship. Turns out intelligent people find their “anchor” in people by building relationships. Studies have found that those who score highly on measures of intelligence are more likely to be married and less likely to get divorced. Thus, intelligent people have less need to seek religion as a substitute for companionship.

Give me the caveats

This meta-analysis only targets analytic intelligence, which surely is not the full measure of human intelligence despite the ongoing debate about how to define the rest of it. Also, although the review encompasses all studies conducted from 1928 to 2012, it only does so for studies written in the English language (two foreign language studies were considered only because a translation was available). The authors believe there are similar studies conducted in Japan and Latin America, but they did not have the time or resources to include them.

Zuckerman also warns that, despite there being thousands of participants overall, ranging among all ages, almost all of them belong to Western society. More than 87 percent of the participants were from the US, the UK, and Canada. So after controlling for other factors, they can only confidently show strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among American Protestants. For Catholicism and Judaism, the correlation may be less negative.

There are some complications to the explanations too. For example, the non-conformist theory of atheism cannot apply to societies where the majority are atheists, such as Scandinavian countries. The possible explanations are also currently just that—possible. They need to be empirically studied.

Finally, not all studies reviewed are of equal quality, and some of them have been criticized by other researchers. But that is exactly why meta-analyses are performed. They help overcome limitations of sample size, poor data, and questionable analyses of individual studies.

As always, the word “correlation” is important. It hasn’t been shown that higher intelligence causes someone to be less religious. So, it wouldn’t be right to call someone a dimwit just because of their religious beliefs. Unless, of course, you are an ancient playwright looking to provoke your audience.

Funny, I don't remember saying anything about believing in a God. You're the second person now who's made that assumption. You've both been equally wrong to do so. The logical problem I'm identifying is present regardless of belief.

Sorry, Operative Alex. In my experience, it's rare for someone to argue so forcefully for a position without holding it personally so I hope you can understand my confusion. Did I address the logical problem regardless of whether or not you are a believer?

Sorry, Operative Alex. In my experience, it's rare for someone to argue so forcefully for a position without holding it personally so I hope you can understand my confusion. Did I address the logical problem regardless of whether or not you are a believer?

He's not so much arguing for a position of faith as he is arguing against an unfounded attack on faith. It's a hard position to correct the extremists on your own side of an issue, but it has to be done in order to be able for both sides to live in harmony.

I do much the same with reactionary zealots, myself. You don't have to agree with someone to know when a debate tactic used against them is unsound or unfounded.

You are truly the first "free thinker" to proclaim agnostic/gnostic atheists and agnostic/gnostic Christians "the same" in the history of apologetics.

One of the pretty basic principles I live by, which I attempted to explain with the jocks vs. nerds analogy I made earlier, is that assholes are assholes regardless of the clique they put themselves in. Quite simply, if I had to spend time with a Christian who doesn't believe their religion makes them better than me, and an atheist who looks down on Christians simply for believing...I'm going to spend time with the Christian.

Being the sort of person who places themselves and people like them on a pedestal and looking down on others isn't something I respect. Doesn't matter if it's a Christian, a nihilist, or an agnostic theist. End of the day, I prefer to judge on actions, not beliefs. If you're an asshole to people, I'm going to call you an asshole.

He's not so much arguing for a position of faith as he is arguing against an unfounded attack on faith. It's a hard position to correct the extremists on your own side of an issue, but it has to be done in order to be able for both sides to live in harmony.

I do much the same with reactionary zealots, myself. You don't have to agree with someone to know when a debate tactic used against them is unsound or unfounded.

And the unfounded attack on faith is that...Religious faith itself is an untenable position because, as social beings, agreement about the way the world works is a fundamental requirement?

Speaking for myself, I don't believe I'm better than someone else based on the source of my moral compass. I'm merely pointing out the ludicrous nature of ws3's (and maybe copsewood too? can't keep it all straight anymore) notion that morality can ONLY come from a holy book, preferably one that's been passed down for several generations.

If I recall correctly, I ALSO responded to that post and said the same thing. Morality is't inherently Christian, any more so than it is the province solely of the non-religious.

Quote:

It is prima facie ridiculous. All you have to do to falsify it is look at any community where there is not a dominant Abrahamic religious tradition. If this were true, then you'd see a couple of things in the world: 1) differences in crime rates between otherwise similar communities (be they cities or countries), tightly correlated to religiosity; and 2) within the same community, changes in crime rates over time, again tightly correlated to religiosity. Europe is a great example. The last 50 years have seen a decline in people identifying as religious (typically, Catholic). I don't see blood running down the Champs Elysee, or gangland murder sprees in Pamplona.

I believe it was Janne who originally referenced the study where crime was higher in areas of higher religiosity. As I explained then, this argument lacks for control of one incredibly important fact: money. Religious tendencies are higher in poorer populations. So is crime, abortions, et cetera. So is disease. The correlation is often cited as a shot against religion (and phrased in ways that imply causation), but it makes about as much sense to me to tie crime to religion as it does to tie disease to religion. Basically, if you look at the root cause, education, crime, religion, and disease are all related...but the strongest correlative factor is economics, not religion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in that same 50 year period in Europe (aside from a few years of austerity), the average standard of living has also risen in Europe, correct? I think it's more logical to tie that to the decrease in crime.

Sorry, Operative Alex. In my experience, it's rare for someone to argue so forcefully for a position without holding it personally so I hope you can understand my confusion. Did I address the logical problem regardless of whether or not you are a believer?

There really isn't a logical problem with what you're saying (or at least I don't think you and I have an intellectual disagreement). You can say that the Christian beliefs don't offer any positive benefits, and that they cause harm. That's separate and distinct from the conversation about whether such a God is falsifiable. I think the idea that Christianity offers no benefits is a much, much tougher one, and would possibly delve more into psychology and even potentially genetics than the conversation has thusfar, and would be an interesting little conversation to have. I'm up for that discussion. But that's not what I was discussing in my replies.

Long story short-- I can't falsify your special spider. Therefore stating with absolute certainty that your spider doesn't exist is just as untestable as you saying it does. Which, if we go all the way back to where this started, is why I said that the "burden of proof" thing can cut both ways. My point was that if I asked someone "does God exist?" and they say "no", that's a specific claim and according to the logic some here have used, the burden of proof would be on them to prove that.

The end state I was looking for was for people to accept someone saying "I believe in God" without being the sort of people that react by saying "well prove he exists!".

Sorry, Operative Alex. In my experience, it's rare for someone to argue so forcefully for a position without holding it personally so I hope you can understand my confusion. Did I address the logical problem regardless of whether or not you are a believer?

There really isn't a logical problem with what you're saying (or at least I don't think you and I have an intellectual disagreement). You can say that the Christian beliefs don't offer any positive benefits, and that they cause harm. That's separate and distinct from the conversation about whether such a God is falsifiable. I think the idea that Christianity offers no benefits is a much, much tougher one, and would possibly delve more into psychology and even potentially genetics than the conversation has thusfar, and would be an interesting little conversation to have. I'm up for that discussion. But that's not what I was discussing in my replies.

Long story short-- I can't falsify your special spider. Therefore stating with absolute certainty that your spider doesn't exist is just as untestable as you saying it does. Which, if we go all the way back to where this started, is why I said that the "burden of proof" thing can cut both ways. My point was that if I asked someone "does God exist?" and they say "no", that's a specific claim and according to the logic some here have used, the burden of proof would be on them to prove that.

The end state I was looking for was for people to accept someone saying "I believe in God" without being the sort of people that react by saying "well prove he exists!".

Unfortunately (from my point of view), those believers who are so moderate as to have the equivalent of my special spider, by their reverence of religious faith itself, create the social space in which extremists may grow and flourish. That, I think, it why "proof" is a reasonable demand. In other words, because I'm granting myself my special spider, I have no reasonable mechanism to deny that someone else's special spider whispers to him or her that homosexuals are evil rather than just sometimes starting his or her car. Or: if we honor that which is not falsifiable, we're left without the means to dishonor whatever foolishness anyone cares to invent.

I hope no one is trying to infer the truth-claims of a specific religion based on how many intelligent people are "religious". I doubt that reality is discovered by doing a pole-type study of people's preferences.If i was to go back in time 1500 years and ask the most intelligent people if the earth is round or flat, well you can guess the answer (it would have been unanimous)

This study seems to be overly simplified: In order to come to the type of conclusion most of you seem to adopt there a LOT of other variable to be taken into account.

For example if i was to do the same study and figure out that "Only" %20 of the most intelligent people are blond. Could i then claim that being blond is a detriment to one's intelligence?

If intelligence itself is mostly genetic, then religious preference of a person who was (for lack of better term) "born with a bigger brain" doesn't tell you much about whether something is true/real or not.

Unfortunately (from my point of view), those believers who are so moderate as to have the equivalent of my special spider, by their reverence of religious faith itself, create the social space in which extremists may grow and flourish. That, I think, it why "proof" is a reasonable demand.

Except that what you end up asking for is proof a person believes in god. Because that's their claim.

In other words, because I'm granting myself my special spider, I have no reasonable mechanism to deny that someone else's special spider whispers to him or her that homosexuals are evil rather than just sometimes starting his or her car. Or: if we honor that which is not falsifiable, we're left without the means to dishonor whatever foolishness anyone cares to invent.

This is a false equivalency.

If one spider is only providing a benefit but another spider is providing a benefit but only if the recipient dehumanize a large percentage of the population, we absolutely should not allow that the latter is as acceptable as the former just because they're both spiders.

Claiming that a god exists is an extraordinary claim, as a god is an extraordinary being and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If your only response to the skepticism of a god that has no measurable influence on the natural universe is that it is unknowable, that is effectively as good as non-existence. For something to be proven to exist, some form of measurable phenomena must occur and all other mundane explanations must be tested and eliminated before one can even begin to hypothesize that the phenomena is originating from a supernatural being. To imply that because you are unable to explain a phenomena, does not indicate the existence of a supernatural being. The cause of the phenomena is merely left unexplained and requires further investigation. "God is unknowable and works in mysterious ways" is not a reasonable explanation because it requires acceptance of an unproven axiom. It's an explanation of last resort that has no logical basis and no testable properties. I could say the "Tooth Fairy did it" and it would be just as valid a claiming that "God did it."

There's a problem with trying to reason the existence of a supernatural being, however. If a supernatural being interacts with the natural world, that being must either abide by the physical laws of that world or change the rules, thereby enabling all beings in that world capable of performing the same feats as the supernatural being so long as they can learn how to do it. Then the supernatural being is no longer supernatural, it is only highly advanced, which is an existence that any mundane being may elevate to. You can't defy the rules of a universe, you can only change them at best, if even that.

Unfortunately (from my point of view), those believers who are so moderate as to have the equivalent of my special spider, by their reverence of religious faith itself, create the social space in which extremists may grow and flourish. That, I think, it why "proof" is a reasonable demand.

Except that what you end up asking for is proof a person believes in god. Because that's their claim.

Some may do that. I think if you look at the majority of the arguments, it is specific beliefs about a given deity that are challenged. I agree it's foolish to ask someone to simply prove that he or she believes (though it's not uncommon for believers to face "tests of faith." Who then is asking a believer to prove he or she believes?)

In other words, because I'm granting myself my special spider, I have no reasonable mechanism to deny that someone else's special spider whispers to him or her that homosexuals are evil rather than just sometimes starting his or her car. Or: if we honor that which is not falsifiable, we're left without the means to dishonor whatever foolishness anyone cares to invent.

This is a false equivalency.

If one spider is only providing a benefit but another spider is providing a benefit but only if the recipient dehumanize a large percentage of the population, we absolutely should not allow that the latter is as acceptable as the former just because they're both spiders.

The equivalence is that neither is falsifiable. Both are faith-based spiders. There are clearly spider-believers who claim that being anti-homosexual is for the benefit of society, right? Without demanding proof of the spider, you're faced with an insurmountable barrier. Verifiable observation provides the only method I know of by which a social species may reach agreement about the universe.

Anyone else think it kind of funny that the 666th post happened to be a bible quote (Ecclesiastes 1:1-18)?

Hey, I missed that!But it's surprisingly, if ironically, apropos.

IRONIC!!!!!!!!!!!? Of course you missed it, you futile warlord! You, yourself, made the 666th post, sweet cakes! You were making the point that life is futile in the universe from borrowing verses in the Bible. I replied and offered more. but you, in your futile, constipated mind, missed that too. You never responded....

May God damn the futile mind! The American futile mind (THE LEFT) is ruinous. Believe their futile proselytizing at your peril. Know this, if you empower the futile, you effect rest of us.... Do you vote futile?. Left is futile. Be careful!Avoid futility!

Anyone else think it kind of funny that the 666th post happened to be a bible quote (Ecclesiastes 1:1-18)?

Hey, I missed that!But it's surprisingly, if ironically, apropos.

IRONIC!!!!!!!!!!!? Of course you missed it, you futile warlord! You, yourself, made the 666th post, sweet cakes! You were making the point that life is futile in the universe from borrowing verses in the Bible. I replied and offered more. but you, in your futile, constipated mind, missed that too. You never responded....

May God damn the futile mind! The American futile mind (THE LEFT) is ruinous. Believe their futile proselytizing at your peril. Know this, if you empower the futile, you effect rest of us.... Do you vote futile?. Left is futile. Be careful!Avoid futility!

These numbers are soft, but they paint the picture well enough. Nature and nurture clearly both play pretty important roles. Not a shocker.

It's difficult to tease apart.

I may be out of date, but I recall from my Psych 101 days that age at separation can make a pretty large difference: IIRC, the IQ of children given up for adoption at birth (within one month?) correlated with the IQ of the adoptive parent, while those given up for adoption at 6 months or older tended to reflect the IQ of the birth mother. Otherwise similar studies of IQ/adoption studies in neighbouring states with different age-of-adoption policies could (did) produce diametrically opposite results.

Anyone else think it kind of funny that the 666th post happened to be a bible quote (Ecclesiastes 1:1-18)?

Hey, I missed that!But it's surprisingly, if ironically, apropos.

IRONIC!!!!!!!!!!!? Of course you missed it, you futile warlord! You, yourself, made the 666th post, sweet cakes! You were making the point that life is futile in the universe from borrowing verses in the Bible. I replied and offered more. but you, in your futile, constipated mind, missed that too. You never responded....

May God damn the futile mind! The American futile mind (THE LEFT) is ruinous. Believe their futile proselytizing at your peril. Know this, if you empower the futile, you effect rest of us.... Do you vote futile?. Left is futile. Be careful!Avoid futility!

... Yep Definitely deranged.

Here is the nature of the American LEFT! It will Condemn all that oppose the futile mind. Choose your side! Nothing offered here from the futile mind but bringing futility into the environment. No thought. This is intelligence? CraziestJohn can lead all that will follow him.

I hope no one is trying to infer the truth-claims of a specific religion based on how many intelligent people are "religious". I doubt that reality is discovered by doing a pole-type study of people's preferences.If i was to go back in time 1500 years and ask the most intelligent people if the earth is round or flat, well you can guess the answer (it would have been unanimous)

This study seems to be overly simplified: In order to come to the type of conclusion most of you seem to adopt there a LOT of other variable to be taken into account.

For example if i was to do the same study and figure out that "Only" %20 of the most intelligent people are blond. Could i then claim that being blond is a detriment to one's intelligence?

If intelligence itself is mostly genetic, then religious preference of a person who was (for lack of better term) "born with a bigger brain" doesn't tell you much about whether something is true/real or not.

1) Inferring the truth-claims of religion is on the face of it moronic. So, basically, only the stupid people are trying to do it.

2) 1500 years ago, the shape of the world would not have been unanimous. The least educated people might have thought it was flat, but the educated and most sailors knew it was round (when you arrive near land, after all, you see the top of the mountain sticking out long before you see the base).

2) 1500 years ago, the shape of the world would not have been unanimous. The least educated people might have thought it was flat, but the educated and most sailors knew it was round (when you arrive near land, after all, you see the top of the mountain sticking out long before you see the base).

I don't know about that. From everything I've read, it was really common knowledge that the Earth was round, for a really long time. It wasn't until recently that people got the idea that people thought the earth was flat.

2) 1500 years ago, the shape of the world would not have been unanimous. The least educated people might have thought it was flat, but the educated and most sailors knew it was round (when you arrive near land, after all, you see the top of the mountain sticking out long before you see the base).

I don't know about that. From everything I've read, it was really common knowledge that the Earth was round, for a really long time. It wasn't until recently that people got the idea that people thought the earth was flat.

That's why I said "might" for only the least educated. If you told me some guy who never travelled more than 1 mile from his village in 500 AD thought the world was flat, I probably wouldn't argue with you.

2) 1500 years ago, the shape of the world would not have been unanimous. The least educated people might have thought it was flat, but the educated and most sailors knew it was round (when you arrive near land, after all, you see the top of the mountain sticking out long before you see the base).

I don't know about that. From everything I've read, it was really common knowledge that the Earth was round, for a really long time. It wasn't until recently that people got the idea that people thought the earth was flat.

That's why I said "might" for only the least educated. If you told me some guy who never travelled more than 1 mile from his village in 500 AD thought the world was flat, I probably wouldn't argue with you.

May God damn the futile mind! The American futile mind (THE LEFT) is ruinous. Believe their futile proselytizing at your peril. Know this, if you empower the futile, you effect rest of us.... Do you vote futile?. Left is futile. Be careful!Avoid futility!

Got it. From now on, I'm only making right turns at red lights. Left is futile!

May God damn the futile mind! The American futile mind (THE LEFT) is ruinous. Believe their futile proselytizing at your peril. Know this, if you empower the futile, you effect rest of us.... Do you vote futile?. Left is futile. Be careful!Avoid futility!

Got it. From now on, I'm only making right turns at red lights. Left is futile!

May God damn the futile mind! The American futile mind (THE LEFT) is ruinous. Believe their futile proselytizing at your peril. Know this, if you empower the futile, you effect rest of us.... Do you vote futile?. Left is futile. Be careful!Avoid futility!

Got it. From now on, I'm only making right turns at red lights. Left is futile!

May God damn the futile mind! The American futile mind (THE LEFT) is ruinous. Believe their futile proselytizing at your peril. Know this, if you empower the futile, you effect rest of us.... Do you vote futile?. Left is futile. Be careful!Avoid futility!

Got it. From now on, I'm only making right turns at red lights. Left is futile!

You should be careful, sometimes the right turn is left.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do...so if I want to be right and make a left turn, then I just need to go left two more times, so I'm right.

So many problems with this study and the article I don't know where to begin.

1. "... the Hunter study did not control for factors such as socioeconomic status or occupation". Which means this study may as well have been done by undergrad students in their spare time. It's not clear that other studies controlled for obviously-important variables, either.

2. "First, religion provides people a sense of control." Actually, the opposite is true: a religion that has a God provides people with a sense of not controlling their own lives, and not having a more predictable life. You know, the old "God works in mysterious ways" thing?

3. "Thus, intelligent people have less need to seek religion as a substitute for companionship." Another total misunderstanding of the principle: religions encourage real-live human companionship. You know, the old "brothers and sisters", and meeting every week thing? Yes, a religious person may talk about "Leaning on God", but that doesn't mean what you think it means.

4. "The correlation is more negative when religiosity measures beliefs rather than behavior. That may be because religious behavior may be used to help someone appear to be part of a group even though they may not believe in the supernatural." Huh? This is backwards: the stronger you believe something, the more likely you are to act accordingly. A hard-scientist would never accept this kind of backwards reasoning.

I could go on, but this article, and the study, have two fatal flaws: 1) a total misunderstanding of religion, and 2) a lack of scientific and logical rigor. It sounds more like some mid-level soft-scientists trying to associate themselves with the Elite Hard-Scientists of whom they speak.

2. "First, religion provides people a sense of control." Actually, the opposite is true: a religion that has a God provides people with a sense of not controlling their own lives, and not having a more predictable life. You know, the old "God works in mysterious ways" thing?

It's counterintuitive, but giving control of some things away actually will provide a greater sense of control to the person so doing. Basically, some people are not cut out to handle dealing with everything that goes on in their lives. But if they give away a portion of the responsibility to some other actor, then they are able to manage with what they have left much better. So, this point is absolutely true.

4. "The correlation is more negative when religiosity measures beliefs rather than behavior. That may be because religious behavior may be used to help someone appear to be part of a group even though they may not believe in the supernatural." Huh? This is backwards: the stronger you believe something, the more likely you are to act accordingly. A hard-scientist would never accept this kind of backwards reasoning.

Again, this seems like it should work the other way around, but it doesn't. Many people who are comfortable and set in their belief structure and routine will be lax about showing that they're religious because they don't have a need to do so. Those who are little or not at all religious but who are in a social situation where religiosity is the norm will go to greater lengths to prove that they are sufficiently religious to satisfy social norms, and thus, will participate out of proportion to their actual level of faith. It's a false front. They have to try harder because to some degree, they're faking it.

I just want to reiterate that any so-called atheist who worships Libertarianism/Objectivism is as irrational as a Jehovah's Witness.The word of Ayn Rand is not infallible, my credulous friends!

I am not an atheist, but if I were, I think I would aim to be a canny bastard -- always looking out for number one, doing whatever I could to advance my material prospects, while attempting to judge my probability of getting caught in a serious crime, and using that judgment to plan my course of action.

In fact, I don't see how any other course of action would be rational for an atheist.

Wow! I don't see how anyone can read Leviticus and Exodus and think that we get our morality from the bible. Considering the murdering spree Moses and the Israelites go on as they trek their way to the promised land, I can only think that we get our morality in spite of the bible. They kill every man woman and child in their way.

If you read the story of the innocent guy gathering sticks on the Sabbath that they stone to death without compassion in Numbers 15:32-36, or the 42 kids that are torn apart by two bears sent by God for the sin of making fun of a one of his messengers for having a bald head 2 Kings 2:23-25, or if you just look at instructions in Leviticus and Exodus on treating your slaves, especially Exodus 21:20-21 where god tells you it's OK to beat your slaves to death as long as they survive for a day or two before dying......you might think that the bible was written as a moral guide to Charles Manson.

Face it, God of the bible does not provide the best role model for morality.

This burden of proof stuff is getting tiresome. There's no burden of proof for faith, and both sides can play the same game of "you made the assertion". It's trite and pointless, really. If I ask you if you believe that God exists, and you say "no", by your own logic, you are making an assertion of belief. I can then say "prove it", right? Does that mean that we can assume that God DOES exist until you prove he doesn't? No, no, of course not.

The "burden of proof" is something that's only useful to someone who wishes to prove something. Maybe the greatest problem here is that people on both sides feel the need to prove everything.

"I believe [deity] (exists/doesn't exist).""Prove it.""No thanks."

You're missing the whole point. If I tell you there is a tooth fairy and you disagree, I can't turn around and say, "prove there's no tooth fairy!" If I tell you that I saw a martian and you are a skeptical, it's up to you to ask me to show you evidence. If you're skeptical about my seeing a martian, I can't say, "prove I didn't see a martian". To use a worn out phrase, "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence."

Religion is, as often as not, a red herring, an excuse palpable to the masses. If religion ceased to exist, it would be something else.

I wonder why religion appears to be so useful in this regard?

A confluence of things. The sense of superiority that your belief is "right" is a powerful force. Fear of the other is another easily exploitable base condition of humanity. Superstition and ingrained habits round out the list. Religion isn't the sole way these things come together, but is merely a common one. I always think back to 1984 and the two minute hate. It doesn't matter who the "other" is. It matters that there is one. Religion is exploitable. That's different than saying that religion is the root cause.

That same hubris of the non-religious, that they are "better" than those who believe, can result in the same outcome. Blaming Christianity for the crimes of Hitler is like blaming the Romanovs for the horrors committed during the rise of Stalin. Just because someone points to something as the reason doesn't mean that's the actual reason.

Antisemitism in Europe is based in Christianity. During medieval times and after, Jews were blamed for the death of Jesus and that was used to excuse all kinds mistreatment of Jewish people. That's in addition to the whole blood libel nonsense. If I recall correctly, it wasn't until pope John Paul II that the Catholic church discarded "Jews were responsible for Jesus' death" as doctrine.

"There is no God" is just as unfalsifiable as "there is a God". "I believe there is a God" is just as falsifiable as "I do not believe there is a God".

Proving or disproving a being whose entire basis is something that is outside the scope of human knowledge or imagination is, of course, quite impossible to falsify. The "burden of proof" nonsense is just that-- tripe. It always ends in a logical stalemate. Neither side can "prove" the other side wrong.

It comes down to belief. Some believe. Others state that they will not believe until they see evidence. The idea of either side proving their case is silly.

It is silly until we start making laws based on the commands of an unprovable deity. I don't care what you believe and I'll stand by your side to defend your right to believe it. But when your belief clouds the political debate, ie,..contraception, stem cell research, interracial marriage (1960's), marriage equality, etc... or if your deity allows institutions to avoid taxes, rules and regulations that the rest of us have ascribe to, the immorality of demonizing condoms in Africa, then i have to ask you to prove your God exists or stop.

Laws and public policy should stem from public debate without consideration given to an entity created by 5000 years ago by savage, barbaric, illiterate men who thought the Earth was flat and sat between two bodies of water, one above and one below!

You don't need to disprove a God to make laws for men. But if you want to make our Earthly laws be God's laws as they pertain to an ancient book, then you have to prove your God. Simple as that.

If I believe in God, but I also believe that I have no evidence of this, what does that make me? What do you get when you cross a theist and an atheist? That is, besides 17 pages of comments?

I say harmless and a person I could easily hang out with. My problem isn't with your type of theist. My problem is with the people who feel a need to influence public policy based on something they have no evidence for. Like the truth of the writings of a 5000 year old book written by barbaric people who stoned non-virgins.

If you keep your God to yourself then I will keep my lack of belief in your God to myself and we can be friends.

You're missing the whole point. If I tell you there is a tooth fairy and you disagree, I can't turn around and say, "prove there's no tooth fairy!" If I tell you that I saw a martian and you are a skeptical, it's up to you to ask me to show you evidence. If you're skeptical about my seeing a martian, I can't say, "prove I didn't see a martian". To use a worn out phrase, "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence."

Except that all of your statements here are just that: extraordinary claims.

Someone stating "I believe there is a god" is not making even a particularly noteworthy claim, and certainly not claiming something extraordinary.

There's really nothing to challenge regarding a statement of belief (unless you think they're actually lying), which is why people who immediately jump to the "prove he exists" bandwagon are the ones actually missing the point.

You're missing the whole point. If I tell you there is a tooth fairy and you disagree, I can't turn around and say, "prove there's no tooth fairy!" If I tell you that I saw a martian and you are a skeptical, it's up to you to ask me to show you evidence. If you're skeptical about my seeing a martian, I can't say, "prove I didn't see a martian". To use a worn out phrase, "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence."

Except that all of your statements here are just that: extraordinary claims.

Someone stating "I believe there is a god" is not making even a particularly noteworthy claim, and certainly not claiming something extraordinary.

There's really nothing to challenge regarding a statement of belief (unless you think they're actually lying), which is why people who immediately jump to the "prove he exists" bandwagon are the ones actually missing the point.

You don't need to disprove a God to make laws for men. But if you want to make our Earthly laws be God's laws as they pertain to an ancient book, then you have to prove your God. Simple as that.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that even if we could prove the existence of god, any god, we still shouldn't write our laws based on what he might have said 2000 years ago.

Now, if he comes in and starts handing down new commandments, however, that's a whole other matter...

A God who created everything in 7 days, who watches over every being in our tiny universe and cares what you do with your private parts in the privacy of your own home, who always needs money and has self worth issues that make not believing in him a larger sin than murder, is more extraordinary than a being from another planet or a little creature whose sole purpose in life is to gather teeth and give you money for your teeth.

But I totally agree with the last part of your response and that seems totally reasonable to me.

Just the damage done by all the anti stem cell research crowd is more than enough to ask for proof of the God that is against the most promising medical research of our century and that could ease the suffering of millions of people.

I just want to reiterate that any so-called atheist who worships Libertarianism/Objectivism is as irrational as a Jehovah's Witness.The word of Ayn Rand is not infallible, my credulous friends!

I am not an atheist, but if I were, I think I would aim to be a canny bastard -- always looking out for number one, doing whatever I could to advance my material prospects, while attempting to judge my probability of getting caught in a serious crime, and using that judgment to plan my course of action.

In fact, I don't see how any other course of action would be rational for an atheist.

So basically your saying you don't think there's any reason to do good unless you get rewarded for it?

Not really. More like, there is no logical reason to be unselfish. Selfishness would almost certainly involve "good" works in the sense that the selfish person does them for his own satisfaction.

But actually the word "good" doesn't really have any meaning from an atheistic point if view, Good is whatever you want it to be.

Your posts reminds me of an Al Pacino quote, "When I was a kid, I want to ask God for a bike, but I know he doesn't work that way, so I stole one and asked for forgiveness." The easy out of asking forgiveness from God when you do bad things renders your point mute. If an atheist world view made you more likely to be unselfish or to do more evil, then one would expect to find a greater percentage of atheists in prison and Death Row than in the general population. Let's see about 15% of the US population is Atheist?Less than .3% of the prison population is atheist. That number is even more impressive when you realize that they grouped agnostics, secularists, and atheists together. You got som serious 'splaining tu du!

I just want to reiterate that any so-called atheist who worships Libertarianism/Objectivism is as irrational as a Jehovah's Witness.The word of Ayn Rand is not infallible, my credulous friends!

I am not an atheist, but if I were, I think I would aim to be a canny bastard -- always looking out for number one, doing whatever I could to advance my material prospects, while attempting to judge my probability of getting caught in a serious crime, and using that judgment to plan my course of action.

In fact, I don't see how any other course of action would be rational for an atheist.

So basically your saying you don't think there's any reason to do good unless you get rewarded for it?

Not really. More like, there is no logical reason to be unselfish. Selfishness would almost certainly involve "good" works in the sense that the selfish person does them for his own satisfaction.

But actually the word "good" doesn't really have any meaning from an atheistic point if view, Good is whatever you want it to be.

As opposed to the specific binding meaning it has in the religious world?

What planet are you living on?

Internal to a given religion (well, for most religions), there is a fixed morality. Presumably anyone who is committed to a particular religion is willing to bind themselves to the moral tenets of their religion so, for them, there is a specific binding meaning.

That is, for a religious person, there is a fixed morality, whereby they can make moral judgments of the actions of any person, while for an atheist there is no such thing.

What part of "Gather your slaves from the nations around you" is moral?

I just want to reiterate that any so-called atheist who worships Libertarianism/Objectivism is as irrational as a Jehovah's Witness.The word of Ayn Rand is not infallible, my credulous friends!

I am not an atheist, but if I were, I think I would aim to be a canny bastard -- always looking out for number one, doing whatever I could to advance my material prospects, while attempting to judge my probability of getting caught in a serious crime, and using that judgment to plan my course of action.

In fact, I don't see how any other course of action would be rational for an atheist.

So basically your saying you don't think there's any reason to do good unless you get rewarded for it?

Not really. More like, there is no logical reason to be unselfish. Selfishness would almost certainly involve "good" works in the sense that the selfish person does them for his own satisfaction.

But actually the word "good" doesn't really have any meaning from an atheistic point if view, Good is whatever you want it to be.

Your posts reminds me of an Al Pacino quote, "When I was a kid, I want to ask God for a bike, but I know he doesn't work that way, so I stole one and asked for forgiveness." The easy out of asking forgiveness from God when you do bad things renders your point mute. If an atheist world view made you more likely to be unselfish or to do more evil, then one would expect to find a greater percentage of atheists in prison and Death Row than in the general population. Let's see about 15% of the US population is Atheist?Less than .3% of the prison population is atheist. That number is even more impressive when you realize that they grouped agnostics, secularists, and atheists together. You got som serious 'splaining tu du!

Hey a quick google search and as near as figure % of Catholics in the general population in united states in 1997 was roughly about 25% ( 26.3% 1990 - 24.5% 2001) so either your Pacino quote was dead on, or the bishops have got some serious explaining to do.